Personally I find it amusing that many of the same Protestants who knock Judith over “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” would jump to the defense of the Book of Daniel over Darius the Mede. Even though Darius the Mede is unknown outside of Daniel, many reply that he may be identified with Gubaru, Cyrus or Cyaxares II. Don’t get me wrong. I think they are right to defend Daniel. Personally, I think Darius the Mede can be identified with Cyaxares II, though I don’t rule out Cyrus. However, my point is that though Protestants will go through many lengths to give the undisputed portions of Scripture the benefit of the doubt, while simultaneously reading the Deuterocanon with a close minded hermeneutic of suspicion identical to that of an internet fundy atheist.
In their book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Protestant Scholars and Apologists Josh and Sean McDowell say:
Though critics commonly assert that the Old Testament contains authentic contradictions, many Bible scholars have provided plausible harmonizations over the centuries. Alleged contradictions often arise from mistakes in interpretation, ignoring genre or literary devices, or through a host of other faulty assumptions. Such alleged contradictions require further research, and others have been satisfactorily resolved. But given the track record of scholarship in this area, we have good reason to believe that if all the facts were known, all alleged discrepancies would disappear. (Page 601)
. . . And yet much earlier, they are quick to say that the so-called “Apocryphal books” are non-canonical because “they abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies’ and anachronisms.” (pg 38). Counter arguments are never considered.
Judith with the rest of the Duterocanon are considered guilty until proven innocent, but guilty regardless. On the other hand, the canon which they hold is considered innocent under every circumstance.
One attempt to identify the Nebuchadnezzar of the book of Judith was suggested by Fulcran Vigouroux. He argued that he was to be identified as Ashurbanipal who ruled Assyria from 669 B.C. to 631, during the time of King Manasseh of Judah.
If this is the case, then perhaps one could argue that the exile mentioned in Judith 4:3 was not a reference to the deportation under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C., but rather the captivity Manasseh temporarily suffered until his repentance in 2 Chronicles 33:11-13. The purification of the temple would have been his removal of the idols he set up in Solomon’s temple and the restoration of the altar (2 Chor. 33: 15-17). Though a weakness here is that it only mentions Manasseh alone being deported.
I disagree with this identification, however, for reasons which tie into other details explained later.
But first, the objection that the book of Judith is “wrong” and therefore does not belong in Scripture because Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon, not of Assyria, only appears strong superficially. But the truth is that those who use this objection are ignorant of how the term “Assyria” was used in the Ancient world. Classical historians have used it in diverse ways:
Herodotus:
When Cyrus had made all the mainland submit to him, he attacked the Assyrians. In Assyria there are many other great cities, but the most famous and the strongest was Babylon, where the royal dwelling had been established after the destruction of Ninus [that is, Nineveh]. Babylon was a city such as I will now describe. (The Histories 1: 178, brackets mine)
178 When Cyrus had made all the mainland submit to him, he attacked the Assyrians. In Assyria there are many other great cities, but the most famous and the strongest was Babylon, where the royal dwelling had been established after the destruction of Ninus. Babylon was a city such as I will now describe. It lies in a great plain, and is in shape a square, each side fifteen miles in length; thus sixty miles make the complete circuit of the city. Such is the size of the city of Babylon; and it was planned like no other city of which we know. Around it runs first a moat deep and wide and full of water, and then a wall eighty three feet thick and three hundred thirty three feet high. The royal measure is greater by three fingers’ breadth than the common measure.
https://cmuntz.hosted.uark.edu/classes/world-civilization-1/herodotus-part-3.html
Given that this narrative is about Cyrus, this is therefore after the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and yet Herodotus speaks of Babylon as “Assyria.” It would be all to easy to dismiss him as simply making a mistake if it weren’t for the fact that he isn’t the only historian to do such a thing. Another example is Xenophon:
“Forthwith Cyrus pressed on towards Babylon, his troops in battle order. But as the Assyrians did not come out to meet them, he bade Gobryas ride forward to deliver this message . . .” (Cyropaedia 5: C.3: 5)
[5] After this Cyrus renewed his march upon2 Babylon, with his army in the same order as when the battle was fought. But as the Assyrians did not march out to meet them, Cyrus ordered Gobryas to ride up and say: “If the king wishes to come out and fight for his country, I myself would join him and fight for him too; but if the king will not protect his country, then I must needs submit to the victors.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0032.tlg007.perseus-eng1:5.3
On greek book 5 chapter 7
So we have two historians who referred to the Babylonians as “Assyrians.” With this in mind, I doubt that someone in the ancient world reading Judith would take issue. If the ancients could refer to them as such, then there is no reason to object to Nebuchadnezzar, their king, being rereferred to as “king of the Assyrians” within the same sense.
The term had yet an even wider range of use. Herodotus mentions certain soldiers. He says, “They are called by the Greeks Syrians, but the foreigners called them Assyrians.” (Histories 7:63). — It gets better, or worse depending on your perspective, because even a certain Biblical book which Protestants do accept as canon reflects this as well:
“They joyfully kept the feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days, for the LORD had filled them with joy by making the King of Assyria favorable to them, so that he gave them help in their work on the house of God, the God of Israel.” (Ezra 6:22)
We know that the king, Darius, was a Persian. This leaves Protestant objectors to the Deuterocanon in a bit of a fix. If they run with the “Judith isn’t Scripture because Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t an Assyrian” argument, then by that same logic, they would have to remove Ezra from the Biblical canon since there was no Darius, king of Assyria. Well, not in our modern sense.
The Time Period
Now, do I think the Nebuchadnezzar of the book of Judith is the same as that of the books of Daniel and Jeremiah? No, for the same reason I don’t think it’s possible to identify him as Ashurbanipal. The Book of Judith clearly indicates a setting from a later period:
“As long as the Israelites did not sin in the sight of their God, they prospered, for their God, who hates wickedness, was with them. But when they abandoned the way he had prescribed for them, they were utterly destroyed by frequent wars, and finally taken as captives into foreign lands. The temple of their God was razed to the ground, and their cities were occupied by their enemies. But now they have returned to their God, and they have come back from the Diaspora where they were scattered. They have reclaimed Jerusalem, where their sanctuary is, and have settled again in the hill country, because it was unoccupied.” (Judith 5: 17-19)
The reference to the temple having been “razed to the ground” cannot be explained as an event before 586 B.C. That they had returned and “reclaimed Jerusalem” proves a date after 538 B.C. But this also strongly indicates that the author was not confused. He knew of the exile and therefore would have known more of the details than the critics apparently give him credit for.
This suggests, therefore, that this is not an error. For the Protestant claim that the author of Judith made “mistakes” to hold any water, this would have to not be intentional, and yet, Judith is very intentional. The writer intended to put down what he wrote, and therefore he did not err.
On the Genre of Judith
Jimmy Akin, in an article for Catholic Answers, gives the suggestion that Judith is a form of literature known as a roman à clef, a story which discusses real people and events but with the names changed. Considering that any attempt to identify “Nebuchadnezzar, King of Assyria” would rest on someone known by a different name, a name change would go without saying. But in spite of a name change, it doesn’t follow that the story isn’t history. After all, I consider Daniel 6 to be strict history, and yet I think Darius the Mede is a name change of a real person.
A reason why I urge caution here is because of what the Pontifical Biblical Commission said on June 23, 1905:
Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?
Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the mind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words.
In response to the question of whether the old decisions of the PBC are still binding, Charles Grodin says that “today it carries only the weight of the respect of the opinion of its members.” In reading the article, my over analytical and scrupulous mind (which would prefer a blunt “yes” or “no” answer) can’t seem to parse out for certain whether that applies only to the the organization itself today verses its old rulings, or all of the above. But I feel obligated to include this detail since I do not wish to lead anyone astray.
Conclusion:
Whatever the intent of the author of Judith, the objections to its inclusion in the canon follow a certain logic that Protestants themselves would refuse to embrace when the same method is utilized against books which they themselves do not dispute. Indeed, if they were to apply the same standard to the rest of the Bible which they apply to the Deuterocanon, they would likely have no Bible left.
Though I cannot identify beyond doubt the Nebuchadnezzar of the Book of Judith, the objection that he was not the “king of Assyria” fails since they do not take into account that the ancients used the term “Assyria” for various peoples, even if they were not Assyrians in the literal sense. With this fact, there is no reason to assume that Judith is in error. Granted, this is a plausible explanation for only one difficulty, but . . . as McDowell says above, “if all the facts were known, all alleged discrepancies would disappear.”
READ https://www.jstor.org/stable/43728231
From lingua franca to lingua sacra: The Scripturalization of Tobit in 4QTob e Andrew B. Perrin Vetus Testamentum Vol. 66, Fasc. 1 (2016), pp. 117-132 (16 pages) Published By: Brill https://www.jstor.org/stable/43894349
Defending the Book of Tobit as History by Dr Taylor Marshall https://taylormarshall.com/2012/03/defending-the-book-of-tobit-as-history.html
Tobias and St Raphael the Archangel
Mark Shea has recently defended his position that the biblical book of Tobit is fiction, nevertheless inspired fiction and worthy of being included in the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Describing Tobit as historical fiction is a common way for modern Catholics to defend the canonicity of Tobit against Protestant naysayers. The book of Tobit, they grant, has so many factual errors and ridiculous accounts (blindness from bird feces in the eyes) that the story cannot possibly be historically true. Protestants have made this argument for 500 years.
Yet the modern Catholic apologist responds to the Protestant naysayer with these words: “Aha, the book of Tobit is fictional…but that doesn’t mean it’s not both inspired and canonical!” So the modern Catholic apologist today grants the Protestant’s objection, but turns it around so as to create room for a book to be inspired fiction acting as if it were history.
These well-meaning Catholics claim that Tobit is inspired fiction just as Christ’s parables are inspired fiction. In fact, they claim that both Tobit and Judith (and sometimes Jonah) contain so many obvious historical errors that the errors were placed there by God in order to tip off the reader to the books’ fictional quality.
There is one problem with this kind of defense regarding “Tobit as inspired fiction.” The Church Fathers did not believe in the fictional nature of the book of Tobit. They believed and taught that Tobit was historical person and that the book bearing his name told a true and historical story.
St. Polycarp, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Cyprian, St Ephrem, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine refer to the characters and narrative of Tobit as historical. As late as 1822, the Holy See had a book put on the Index of Forbidden Books because it asserted by the book of Tobit was not historical but poetical (the book was Joahnn Jahn’s Introductio in libros sacros).
Did St Augustine or even St Thomas Aquinas miss something important when they taught that Tobit was historical and factual? Whenever I am asked to side with someone against both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, I get a bit nervous. In fact, it is a pretty safe rule of thumb to always side against a position when both Augustine and Thomas agree with the opposite position. Moreover, the Pontifical Biblical Commision decreed that we are to hold the historical books of Scripture historically (Biblical Commission, June 23, 1905)…and Tobit is a historical book.
It is the historical consensus of the Catholic Church that Tobit is not only inspired and inerrant, but that it is also historical. Nevertheless, there had better be some pretty good reasons for defending the historicity of Tobit. Granted, there are some problems. I’ll cite the old Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject of historical problems and then their common answers as they address them much more precisely than I can.
A word of warning: the manuscript tradition of Tobit is messy with the Vulgate, Old Latin, Aramaic, Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaticus texts having similarities and variations.
Below, A refers to the text of the Alexandrian codex (fifth century), and B refers to Vatican codex (fourth century) of the Greek Septuagint; Aleph or A alone refers to Codex Sinaticus (fourth century) of the Septuagint.
- Objection: It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (IV Kings, xv, 29) into captivity (734 B.C.). But Tobit wrongly says that it was (i, 2), Salmanasar.
Answer to Objection: This reading of the Vulgate, Old Latin, and Aramaic is to be corrected by the name Enemesar of AB and A. This latter reading would be equivalent to the Hebrew `NM SR, a transliteration of the Assyrian kenum ≈°ar. As the appellative ≈°ar, “king”, may precede or follow a personal name, kenum ≈° ar is ≈°ar kenum, that is Sargon (≈°arru-kenu II, B.C. 722). It can readily be that, twelve years after Theglathphalasar III began the deportation of Israel out of Samaria, Sargon’s scouts completed the work and routed some of the tribe of Nephthali from their fastnesses. - Objection: Tobit wrongly states that Sennacherib was the son of Salmanasar (i, 19) whereas he was in verified history the son of Sargon.
Answer to the Objection: The Vulgate reading here, as in i, 2, should be that of AB and A, to wit, Enemesar; and this stands for Sargon. - Objection: In B, xiv, 15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asueros) and Nabuchodonosor.
Answer to the Objection: A reads that Achiacharos took Ninive and adds that “he praised God for all He had done against the children of Ninive and Assyria”. The word for Assyria is Athoureias Hebrew ‘asshur, Aramaic ahur; this Greek word misled the scribe to write `Lsueros for the name of the king, Achiacharos, i.e. the Median King Cyaxares. According to Berossus, Cyaxares was, in his campaign against Ninive, allied to the Babylonian King Nabopalassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor; the scribe of B has written the name of the son for that of the father, as Nabopalassar was unknown to him. - Objection: Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism.
Answer to Objection: This is not at all a historical error since it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored. Also there are two towns called Rages. Ecbatana was also called Rages.
I also read the defense by Cornelius a Lapide for the historicity of Tobit. It is quite convincing. It’s available online in Latin. Regrettably, I don’t have the time to reproduce it all in English.
I would like to close by saying that there is a place for inspired fiction. Christ our Lord’s parable of seeds and the soil or His parable about the lost coin are in fact inspired fiction.
I think we draw the line, however, when books that present themselves as inspired history are taken as inspired fiction. The parables of Christ are generic stories (“A man did such an such”, “A woman…”, “A Samaritan…”, or “A king…”). However, Tobit is specific and lists historical times and places. To interpret Tobit as inspired fiction seems to fall out of line with Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu which holds that we study Scripture mindful of the genre of a book. Tobit, by all accounts, is a historical book.
No offense toward Mark Shea nor to his good work, blog posts, and helpful writings; however, the consensus of the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas regarding the nature of Tobit have great merit and a long legacy.
ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor Marshall, Ph.D.
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail3292 words · 141 views